CIC’s order fails to yield any results from DoPT even after 8 months
Moneylife Digital Team 10 November 2011

The RTI activist was told about a stay from the High Court after eight months of his appeal being withheld

The government has attempted to stonewall the Right to Information (RTI) Act yet again. Surprisingly, the RTI activist, who had filed an application, has been informed that the authorities will not disclose information he sought, almost eight months after the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) ruled in his favour. Moreover, the CIC has informed him that the government authorities have obtained a High Court stay on disclosure of information, but the mail he received does not contain copy of the stay order.

RTI activist, Subhash Chandra Agrawal, said, “The CIC issued an order on 29th March, which said that I will be provided all the information within 10 days. Nothing happened for long, and just a couple of days ago, I was told that a stay has been obtained on disclosure. But the documents that I received do not contain any stay order, there is only the copy of the writ petition asking for the stay.”

Mr Agrawal has approached the CIC for taking up the matter with the public authorities; namely, Union Cabinet secretariat and Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT). He said, “The CIC, on 29th October directed that all information be provided within 10 days. But so far none of the public authorities have cared to provide the information sought.”

Seeking information regarding transfer of Bhupider Prasad, secretary to department of justice and posting of Neela Gangadharan in the same position back in April 2010, Mr Agrawal fined an RTI application. While the public information officer (PIO) provided some information, he refused to disclose file notings and correspondence notes. Mr Agrawal filed appeals, where, the CPIO reiterated that such information is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act.

Finally, the CIC Satyananda Mishra quashed the CPIO’s claims of exemption, and ordered that all information be provided within 10 days. The hearing took place on 29 March 2011; but the public authorities concerned, namely the DoPT and the Union Cabinet secretariat made no attempt to provide any information.

“Whenever I called the departments, they would say that they were ‘thinking’ of approaching the Delhi High Court for a stay. But then, the authorities must approach the court within 30 days of the order being issued,” Mr Agrawal said.

He then approached the CIC again, asking for taking the matter up with the public authorities. However, three days ago, he received a reply from the CIC, which said that a stay has been obtained against its order.

The documents, Mr Agrawal received, however, do not contain copy of the stay order. There is a copy of the writ petition that the DoPT had filed in the Delhi High Court on 18 August, 2011 asking for a stay. It pleaded that the ‘impugned judgment (of the CIC) is erroneous, illegal and contrary to the intent and purposes of RTI Act.’

It said that Cabinet papers are exempt from disclosure, and that the public authorities are ‘not under obligation’ to disclose information that fall under the exemptions listed from Section 8(a) to 8(j) of RTI Act.

Mr Agrawal said, “I have an appointment with the CIC shortly, and I will ask them about this. I would like to see the stay order too. I feel that there is no reason for not giving the information.”

Comments
PRAVEEN SAKHUJA
1 decade ago
It is government authorities which riggle the law but require others to stick to it and implement. WHY DoPT is afraid of providing the information such cases prompt other authorities also to sit on the orders of CIC and CIC also scums to its illegal demands.
Array
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback